[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.53 June 12

[g00bd0g]

Nocost means that the cost of those parts has not been determined for RP0. You can use those parts if you want. They'll work, and they'll be only available when you did the appropriate science. But they are likely to be over or underpriced, and in this respect out of balance.

[chrisl]

Since Avionics is a RP-0 thing I'm assuming it would go here even though I think the system is part of Real Fuels. Anyway. is there any way to include Avionics as an option for fuel tanks? Just like we can add LeadBallast or Electricity to tanks?

The problem I am experiencing is that while we have some generic Avionics modules, they are set sizes (1m, 2m, 3m) but most early(-ish) American rockets (and probably others but I'm mostly familiar with American ones) are odd sized (Atlas, Titan, most Centaur = 3.05m, Centaur T = 4.3m, Delta II = 2.4m) so using the generic modules don't work so well. It's fine when there's a prebuilt fuel tank with an avionics package included, but from what I can tell there is only the generic Centaur fuel tank (representing Centaur A, B, C, D & D1). The longer Centaurs used with the Atlas III and V, the wider Centaur T used on the Titan IV, and the various DCSS tanks can currently only be recreated using procedural tanks and then trying to fit an improperly sized generic avionics module somewhere inside a fairing. But if there was some way to include avionics as if it where ElectricCharge, that would give a lot more freedom to create some of these stages without the need for dozens of new parts.

[balu0]

Hey guys, anyone know a fix for the low thrust on the IO-550 propeller engine ?

It gives off way too low power. I like my early prop plane so if anyone have a tip what to edit to fix it, that would be awesome.

[Almodeon]

Hey guys, anyone know a fix for the low thrust on the IO-550 propeller engine ?

It gives off way too low power. I like my early prop plane so if anyone have a tip what to edit to fix it, that would be awesome.

Hey! Go to GameData\RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\SXT\ and edit the RO_SXT_Bonanza.cfg file.

Find the "@maxThrust = 1.0" line; on my config that's the 22nd line.

Increase that value to something higher. For my part I have set that to 4.0. It's a good compromise, especially for smaller planes in early career. I came up with a similar value for the actual real-world IO-550, so I guess that's fair. I'm no expert on the subject, so I might easily be wrong.

To be fair, I must say that I disabled AJE in my config.

[balu0]

Thx ,I'll try that.

[illectro]

Hey! Go to GameData\RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\SXT\ and edit the RO_SXT_Bonanza.cfg file.

Find the "@maxThrust = 1.0" line; on my config that's the 22nd line.

Increase that value to something higher. For my part I have set that to 4.0. It's a good compromise, especially for smaller planes in early career. I came up with a similar value for the actual real-world IO-550, so I guess that's fair. I'm no expert on the subject, so I might easily be wrong.

To be fair, I must say that I disabled AJE in my config.

The equation of thrust generated by a Prop is

efficiency*power/airspeed

For much of the speed range props get about ~0.8

Beechcraft engines generate about 200kW of power so at 100km/h on the runway we'd expect about 5-6 kN of thrus.

[balu0]

It's 1,7 kN now on runway.. .waaayyyy toooo low

[Almodeon]

The equation of thrust generated by a Prop is

efficiency*power/airspeed

For much of the speed range props get about ~0.8

Beechcraft engines generate about 200kW of power so at 100km/h on the runway we'd expect about 5-6 kN of thrus.

Indeed I got 5.6 kN yesterday from the same formula, but I wasn't sure so I settled on 4.0 to be on the safe side.

I will increase to that value now that I have some sort of confirmation

Thanks!

[balu0]

Didn't work, the thrust on the runway is still only 1.8

[NathanKell]

ferram found and fixed the bugs in SolverEngines and AJE that were killing props and piston engines. Expect new releases of both shortly.

[magico13]

ferram found and fixed the bugs in SolverEngines and AJE that were killing props and piston engines. Expect new releases of both shortly.

I'm working on KCT right now. Testing a few fixes, so that will be out tonight as well.

[Fenriswaffles]

I don't know what mod/requirement is doing it so I'm asking in RP-0 as its the mod I installed;

When I install RP-0 via CKAN and its requirements/optional mods, nearly all of the wings no longer provide lift, so trying to get a plane off the runway at best results in the plane getting to ~80m/s and flipping up and on to its back and at worst just veering off and rolling over.

I have no other mods installed and I've reinstalled KSP and the mod/requirements with no luck, vanilla KSP works just fine naturally. I haven't found any reference to anyone else having issues with this.

[Ascraeus]

Hi, first of all, i would really like to thank everyone involved in the KSP-Realism way,

I would like to do a suggestion to add some contracts regarding planetary orbiters, modelling primary and extended missions:

- When you get a contract to orbit a planet, you get a primary mission that will be something like staying in orbit of that planet for a couple of years (Lets say 2 years in mars or venus, 4 in jupiter or saturn... mirroring real life equivalents, perhaps with specific orbital parameters) and transmit science back (just generic science or specific instruments).

- When you complete a orbiter contract like the aforementioned you get the reward (duh) and autoaccept an extended mission (in the same fashion that altitude records). When you complete any subsequent extended mission you would get diminishing returns in terms of rewards.

This is easily doable with Contract Configurator and i think it would open an interesting gameplay when mods like:JDiminishingRTG, Orbital Decay, TestFlight and any other mod limiting life expectancy of spacecrafts.

You'll be facing two dilemmas:

1.- Dilemma "a la Opportunity": Should i keep extending my old Mars Orbiter for less and less reward each time, or free the mission control and embark in a more ambitious Jupiter Orbiter?

2.- Lifetime design dilemma: Should i invest in more RCS monopropellant so i can avoid orbital decay, (or a more reliable part in any sense) to get a longer life expectancy for my orbiter, and expect several extended missions, or the extra costs dont justify it?

I dont know if you think its a idea that worth it, those are just my two cents. You can see a stub of all this in the repo i forked: https://github.com/Ascraeus1/RP-0/tree/master/GameData/RP-0/Contracts/Orbiter-Contracts

Hope its of any interest and excuse my poor english!

PD: I know nothing about programming but a simple (?) Module (?) that make solar panels to loose efficiency over the years (~2% yearly) would be really cool here, with budget vs life expectancy gameplay. So sad i cant do this, but come on! ModuleDegradingSolarPanels is waiting for a caritative developer adoption!

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ascraeus

[Autochton]

Having recently started a new RP-0 game, as well as watching Scott Manley's new series on it, it occurs to me that it really ought to be possible to build carrier aircraft. After all, X-1 was airdropped out of a modified B-29, X-15 from the wing mount on a B-52. There's a long-standing tradition for it.

However, the biggest procedural part available is 2m circumference, and while ProcFair hull plating and interstage adapters could build a cargo bay, it seems rather more difficult than it ought to be. Also, there's no suitable cockpit for such a vehicle, to my knowledge. Something like the He-111 or B-29 would be a lovely addition. As would a selection of prop engines. Maybe I just need the right mods?

Balance-wise, larger, heavier parts will quite handily be exceedingly hard to make go fast - you'd be unlikely to get a 3-4m hull up over the sound barrier with the low-level engines, and early avionics packages make it rather difficult to successfully air-launch a rocket ascension mission (sounding rocket etc.). Plus, the benefit is small for anything but flight testing X-planes. For X-planes, however, the benefit is huge.

[Framerate]

Just encountered a wierd bug after updating to RO 10.3:

In my RP Zero saved game I had one probe in orbit around the moon and one landed on the moon north pole.

When I continued the save today after updating all mods using Ckan, my probes where no longer at earths moon, but at Saturns moon Iapetus, and all of a sudden I got a whole lot of Iapetus contracts.

Is lesson learned here not to update mods during a playthrough?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Framerate
grammar

[an463]

I have just installed RO10.3 using CKAN here, and as I try to play through the career, I'm having an issue. The Aerobee sustainer will ignite, but after a few seconds it will cut out, saying that I'm out of ignitions. My sounding rocket is built exactly like Scott Manley's, but even still, it cuts out. Is this an issue with Test Flight? Or another mod?

[GigaG]

I installed RP-0 with CKAN. Everything still looks like Kerbin. Do you need to install RSS separately?

[Lilienthal]

I installed RP-0 with CKAN. Everything still looks like Kerbin. Do you need to install RSS separately?

RSS needs to be installed. If CKAN didn't do it, select it manually in ckan and try again.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Lilienthal

[Jonno]

I just started a career mode game with KSP 1.04 / RSS 10.2 / RO 10.3 / RP-0 0.36 / etc [1], but can't get the Thermometer or Barometer to work properly.

I built my first rocket [2] as per the RP-0 Getting Started Tutorial [3], but after launching it I can't "Log Temperature / "Log Pressure Data". I can "Analyse Telemetry" on the probe to get science, and I can "Toggle Display" on both the Thermometer and Barometer, but I get no option to log data, and nothing happens if I try to activate them using an action group, so my science gathering potential is a bit too low to get anywhere.

Did I do something wrong or did I stumble upon a bug right away?

[1] http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=s3tSuq8V

[2] http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=UMtyWxy4

[3] https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/Getting-Started-Tutorial

[NathanKell]

Jonno: Alas I've never seen that issue myself. For now, I'd suggest removing mods that RP-0 isn't requiring or recommending (i.e. KW Rocketry), and removing Crowd Sourced Science since it does nothing for RP-0 (All the entries are nuked by RP-0 because they pertain to Kerbin/Moho/etc not Earth etc).

PSA: With the latest AJE (2.4) and SolverEngines (1.10) and RealFuels (10.6), prop engines work now and the EC bug is fixed.

[Jonno]

NathanKell: Turns out Crowd Sourced Science was the culprit, simply removing it using CKAN fixed the issue...

[thrull1]

I have just installed RO10.3 using CKAN here, and as I try to play through the career, I'm having an issue. The Aerobee sustainer will ignite, but after a few seconds it will cut out, saying that I'm out of ignitions. My sounding rocket is built exactly like Scott Manley's, but even still, it cuts out. Is this an issue with Test Flight? Or another mod?

I am also having this issue having discovered this family of mods through Scott Manley's YouTube channel. I have tried all sorts of things from varying the thrust limiter on the tiny tim to trying to start the sustainer before, during and after the tiny tim boost. No matter what I do, the sustainer will not stay lit.

Any help would be appreciated.

[ZoltanJackson]

I have just installed RO10.3 using CKAN here, and as I try to play through the career, I'm having an issue. The Aerobee sustainer will ignite, but after a few seconds it will cut out, saying that I'm out of ignitions. My sounding rocket is built exactly like Scott Manley's, but even still, it cuts out. Is this an issue with Test Flight? Or another mod?

Test Flight could be causing it to fail for some reason. Do you get any failure messages anywhere? It works fine for me with Test Flight, though. Have you tried it without Test Flight, or tried cutting away any mods that RP-0 / Realism Overhaul don't recommend, to narrow it down?

[Pds314]

Don't have the first tier of supersonic flight yet? Never fear! Thrust plates are here! Simply attach several Derwent Vs at the back of a Bonanza cockpit and some fuel, a circular intake at the front, and wings and gears in a position to reduce mach 1 drag area down to like 0.3 m^2. It turns out that 530 m/s in level flight at 20000 meters is perfectly doable with mid-1940s jet engines if you have enough of them!

What? I'm using area ruling before it was discovered? No, that's just "aesthetics" and "pointy bits.

P.s. How can something like the Bonanza pressurize when the external air pressure is triple digit Pascals? Also, why do these jet engines seem to overheat even when they claim internal temperatures below the boiling point of water?

[NathanKell]

I thought the Bonanza came without oxygen. I'll check that out. For the actual combustion chamber temp, right-click on the engine to see the "Chamber temp" line; IIRC the Derwent has a chamber temp limit of about 550 K.